- Defence policy
- Equipment and support
- Modernising defence
- Aviation
- Marine
- Land vehicles
- Security
- HR and training
- Defence estates (DIO)
News updates
Twitter updates
Facebook
Email
Print
'Commons should quiz Cabinet Secretary over BAE merger'
26 September 2012
Davis, who sat on David Cameron's front bench as shadow home secretary when in opposition, told the Daily Mail "it would be a good idea" for the top Whitehall mandarin to give evidence.
Indications that officials including MoD procurement chief Bernard Gray could be called in front of the committee were reported yesterday.
Sir Jeremy was seen to be a likely candidate for the committee due to meetings he had reportedly held with BAE, EADS, and Morgan Stanley, the latter being a company that was advising BAE on the merger and which Heywood himself had worked for.
"I do think it's highly unusual for someone as senior as the Cabinet Secretary to be involved in a deal like this," he told the newspaper.
"You can imagine senior staff in the Department of Business and the Ministry of Defence taking an interest but quite why the Cabinet Secretary is involved, I'm not at all sure. It's not something that's within his purview.
"I'm sure he's been utterly proper and obeyed all the rules but the worry is that the judge of whether a civil servant has behaved appropriately is the Cabinet Secretary himself. It would have made more sense if he had delegated to other officials."
HAVE YOUR SAY
26 September 2012
Best get his answers now before he gets a job with the newly formed company if and when it gets the go ahead
JC - UK
26 September 2012
The German government are pushing for the new company to be 70% EADS owned and the US are making clear BAE would have to sell its US interests unless the German and French governments sell their shares in EADS.
Unless these are resolved the merger will not happen.
Graham - High Wycombe
26 September 2012
Quite right!
Pity we don't have more MPs and ministers like David Davies in parliament who are experienced and successful outside politics.
David Cameron is way out of his depth on most things, and most definitely where BAe & Eads are concerned.
If Cameron's only adviser is an ex MS employee then clearly there is a problem.
Martin Bayliss - Stroud
26 September 2012
Graham - High Wycombe
The issues you state are insurmountable and clearly out of the control of the UK or BAE.
Unless BAE agree to a 30% stake and sell their US interests its off. However, given the only motivation for the take over being greed BAE are just as likely to do this. Unless the forces of democracy and reason intervene.
We can only hope!
Martin Bayliss - Stroud
26 September 2012
The amount of corruption in government is staggering - from wind turbines to defence deals. We got more than we bargained for when we adopted the "continental cafe culture" didn't we?
Alleged corruption I mean, of course.
Chris - London
26 September 2012
Given the right terms & UK/French/German government R&D backing, a BAE/EADS merger might be a good thing.
However, this is looking more & more like a bad deal for the UK.
It will only go ahead because the bankers will make fat fees from it & not care the damage caused to UK industry.
We need an economic treason act to deal with the bankers once & for all.
John Hartley - Woking/Surrey/UK
26 September 2012
Heywood obviously has conflict of interest with this. I totally agree with David Davis, he should not only quizzed by the HOCDC, but by the Committee on Standards in Public Life.
tim_dainton - Romsey
27 September 2012
Logic would dictate that the merger should not continue, therefore, since the UK government / MoD is full of idiots, one can only expect this merger to proceed without even a blink of concern or understanding of what it entails.
BAE would be stupid to sell of its well performing US interests, which is probably why EADS wants in, since by themselves they struggle in that market.
I await the government committee investigation in 2020...
Shaun - Ex_RNZN
27 September 2012
EADS TAKEOVER OF BAE: LAZY WAY OUT OUT OF BAE's PRETTY-STANDARD-FARE LONG-TERM CHALLENGES!!
If BAE wants a larger proportion of its revenues to come from commercial- and not military aerospace ventures- why doesn't BAE just purchase 25%- 45% of EADS thereby avoiding EADS obtaining ownership of BAE through the currently proposed- misleadingly termed- 'merger' of the 2 companies??
Alternatively: working with another aerospace company/companies- such as Finmeccanica, Hitachi &/or Bombardier- why doesn't BAE make a joint bid for EADS????
Or, why doesn't EADS just sell its military businesses (Eurocopter and the like) to BAE, and become a 'normal' company??
... and after EADS proves that it can operate as a 'normal' company- IE: no more arbitrary-control-by-France-and-Germany, for 4 or 5 years... look for a defence company to 'merge' with....
=============
Rather than, in effect, allowing BAE to be cannibalized by EADS- with BAE's currently not-highly/un-profitable divisions substantially shrunk/closed/moved to France/Germany- wouldn't a more appropriate strategy be for BAE, the UK govt- & reps of UK aerospace business associations- to be strategizing how BAE could better balance its portfolio of products and services by acquiring UK- and overseas- non-military- IE: civilian- companies???
Bombardier, Thales, Finmeccanica, (parts of) Hitachi, Kawasaki and many other companies world-wide would make better strategic fits with BAE than EADS...
Why is the UK printing hundreds-of-billions of 'quantitative easing' money- just to bankroll unprofitable banks and southern Europe countries??
=============
If the proposed takeover of functionally-independent BAE by France/Germany-controlled EADS is allowed to occur- how long until the UK's only other defence firm with extensive contracts in the US and world-wide, Rolls-Royce, is devoured by one of France or Germany's companies??
Would France enable- or even allow- a foreign-takeover of one of its defence mega-companies such as Thales, Snecma, Safran, Dassault or DCN??
Would Germany allow a foreign-takeover of Volkswagen or Daimler or Siemens??
===============
Considering the very serious security and national sovereignty ramifications of a foreign-takeover of BAE, a cabinet-level committee- working-with-BAE-and-representatives-of-UK-aerospace-associations, ought to be struck and tasked with establishing the most likely-to-be-successful long-term business strategies for BAE...
Roderick V. Louis - Vancouver, BC, Canada
27 September 2012
Shaun - Ex_RNZN
Actually the reverse is true, if BAE are forced by the US to hive off their US interests then BAE becomes much less attractive for EADS as it is this foothold that makes merger and (initially) offering 40% to BAE attractive. If the US says merger equals the end of its US business then the deal is unattractive for both parties.
BAE has offered to set up a new subsidiary which would have an all US board except for the chairman who would be the BAE chairman. It depends if this is enough to allay US fears while still remaining attractive to EADS.
Also latest news is that EADS under German pressure is now offering to meet half way with a 65/35 split.
Graham - High Wycombe
27 September 2012
Forgot to add the best article which looks at the reasons why BAE wants a merger and what its options are if it doesn't go ahead:
http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/awx_09_26_2012_p0-500149.xml&p=1
(Use the next and previous page buttons at the bottom its five pages long)
Graham - High Wycombe
27 September 2012
This deal makes a mockery of the so-called "balanced economy" statements of this government. Deeds not words - when are these career politicians going to realise it takes more the lip-service to be a patriot (and to be seen as one).
This is not an Eton debating chamber, this is real life and Britain is real country. Under today's politicians the British lion has no pride - it stands toothless, kept in a corner by its political circus masters and their nonsensical top hats of so-called superiority.
Disraeli where are you now when we need you?
Michael - Hertfordshire
27 September 2012
MANY 'GLOBAL' AEROSPACE COMPANIES WOULD BE BETTER FITS WITH BAE- & MAKE BETTER BUSINESS SENSE MERGED WITH BAE- THAN EADS!!
Rather than, in effect, allowing BAE to be cannibalized by EADS- with BAE's currently not-highly/un-profitable divisions substantially shrunk/closed/moved to France/Germany- wouldn't a more appropriate strategy be for BAE, the UK govt- & reps of UK aerospace business associations- to be strategizing how BAE could better balance its portfolio of products and services by acquiring UK- and overseas- non-military- IE: civilian- companies???
Bombardier, Thales, Finmeccanica, (parts of) Hitachi, Kawasaki and many other companies world-wide would make better strategic fits with BAE than EADS...
Why is the UK printing hundreds-of-billions of 'quantitative easing' money- just to bankroll unprofitable banks and southern Europe countries??
If the proposed takeover of functionally-independent BAE by France/Germany-controlled EADS is allowed to occur- how long until the UK's only other defence firm with extensive contracts in the US and world-wide, Rolls-Royce, is devoured by one of France or Germany's companies??
Would France enable- or even allow- a foreign-takeover of one of its defence mega-companies such as Thales, Snecma, Safran, Dassault or DCN??
Would Germany allow a foreign-takeover of Volkswagen or Daimler or Siemens??
==============
Interesting article in that it describes the pervasive ownership stakes of France's govt in most of that country's SUCCESSFUL mega-sized aerospace firms:
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-09-25/dassault-s-victory-in-india-cornering-eads-bae-becomes-boomerang
Roderick V. Louis - Vancouver, BC, Canada